The “gene patent” dichotomy between the US and Australia

The recent Meat & Livestock Australia Limited v Cargill, Inc (MLA) Federal Court decision has brought the significant differences that exist between Australian and US “gene patent” practice into sharp focus. These differences predominantly arise from the peculiarities of the US and AU Myriad decisions as well as the US Mayo v. Prometheus and Ariosa v.

Will the Australian High Court Myriad “gene patent” decision impact the patenting of all isolated biological material?

Last week, Shelston IP reported that the Australian High Court (the Australian equivalent to the US Supreme Court) unanimous ruled that isolated naturally-occurring nucleic acids were not patentable subject matter in Australia. The decision itself has been widely reported. There has, however, been little or no commentary regarding the ramifications of the decision and, in

Push for gene patent ban in Australia resurrected

Seemingly unsatisfied by two recent Senate Inquiry Reports which rejected proposals to legislate against gene patents, the proponents of gene patent reform appear to have resurrected their cause via a new Private Members’ Bill which once again seeks to ban gene patents in Australia. In September 2011, we reported that an attempt to ban gene

Inevitable change to the Australian patent system progresses

On 23 November 2011, the Federal Government tabled its combined response addressing the recommendations of the Senate Gene Patents Report (November 2010) and a number of previous reports into gene patenting and patentable subject matter in Australia. In their response, the Government endorsed a number of recommendations which aim at increasing the quality of granted

ACIP Report on patentable subject matter issued

Following the 2004 Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) report on gene patenting and human health in which it was reported that the key concept of patentable subject matter in Australia was ambiguous and obscure, the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research asked the Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (ACIP) to conduct a review into